Obviously, no one disputes that Sea Level has been rising since the last Ice Age – very slowly; and certainly, if Sea Level Rise (SLR) is or will accelerate rapidly, we need to know about it, and plan for it; but , in short, it seems that the General Assembly want’s actual proof , instead of using an Ouija Board to predict acceleration of Sea Level Rise.

The issue arose because the CRC, Science Panel (SP) and scientists said,

– SL has been rising 18 inches / 100y ,

– 1 foot of SLR would inundate up to 2 miles of tidelands,

and then, using UN IPCC guesstimates, jumped to proposing Planning Policy for 39” SLR by 2100.

– Validity of tide gage data presented by the SP was found to be suspect.

– the SP’s Literature Search, was a one sided selection of Pro AGW and Pro SLR reports, with no other viewpoints presented.

When asked about this, the SP , scientists, and an educational institution have refused to answer questions, declined to do the studies, and refused to participate in an Open Public Forum.

Admittedly, I have received a maelstrom of studies on erosion, but none definitively answer the question. Why not? IF a comparative study of inundation has been done, it should be easy enough to post the pages for everyone to see.

As no one is omniscient, and being responsible to protect the property rights of all the citizens of NC, it looks like the General Assembly is just saying, we need comprehensive verifiable science, before making important public policy decisions.

Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores.

]]>By: Bill Pricehttp://www.arcataeye.com/2012/06/humboldt-bay-not-ready-for-sea-level-rise-june-8-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-67728
Sat, 09 Jun 2012 16:56:06 +0000http://www.arcataeye.com/?p=6062#comment-67728National and International media have been criticizing the NC General Assembly, by joking that a Draft NC Law intends to stop Sea Level from rising or accelerating.

Real funny.

Obviously, no one disputes that Sea Level has been rising since the last Ice Age – very slowly; and certainly, if Sea Level Rise (SLR) is or will accelerate rapidly, we need to know about it, and plan for it; but , in short, it seems that the General Assembly want’s actual proof , instead of using an Ouija Board to predict acceleration of Sea Level Rise.

The issue arose because the CRC, Science Panel (SP) and scientists said,

– SL has been rising 18 inches / 100y ,

– 1 foot of SLR would inundate up to 2 miles of tidelands,

and then, using UN IPCC guesstimates, jumped to proposing Planning Policy for 39” SLR by 2100.

– Validity of tide gage data presented by the SP was found to be suspect.

– the SP’s Literature Search, was a one sided selection of Pro AGW and Pro SLR reports, with no other viewpoints presented.

When asked about this, the SP , scientists, and an educational institution have refused to answer questions, declined to do the studies, and refused to participate in an Open Public Forum.

Admittedly, I have received a maelstrom of studies on erosion, but none definitively answer the question. Why not? IF a comparative study of inundation has been done, it should be easy enough to post the pages for everyone to see.

As no one is omniscient, and being responsible to protect the property rights of all the citizens of NC, it looks like the General Assembly is just saying, we need comprehensive verifiable science, before making important public policy decisions.

Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores.

]]>By: Bill Pricehttp://www.arcataeye.com/2012/06/humboldt-bay-not-ready-for-sea-level-rise-june-8-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-67792
Sat, 09 Jun 2012 16:56:06 +0000http://www.arcataeye.com/?p=6062#comment-67792National and International media have been criticizing the NC General Assembly, by joking that a Draft NC Law intends to stop Sea Level from rising or accelerating.

Real funny.

Obviously, no one disputes that Sea Level has been rising since the last Ice Age – very slowly; and certainly, if Sea Level Rise (SLR) is or will accelerate rapidly, we need to know about it, and plan for it; but , in short, it seems that the General Assembly want’s actual proof , instead of using an Ouija Board to predict acceleration of Sea Level Rise.

The issue arose because the CRC, Science Panel (SP) and scientists said,

– SL has been rising 18 inches / 100y ,

– 1 foot of SLR would inundate up to 2 miles of tidelands,

and then, using UN IPCC guesstimates, jumped to proposing Planning Policy for 39” SLR by 2100.

– Validity of tide gage data presented by the SP was found to be suspect.

– the SP’s Literature Search, was a one sided selection of Pro AGW and Pro SLR reports, with no other viewpoints presented.

When asked about this, the SP , scientists, and an educational institution have refused to answer questions, declined to do the studies, and refused to participate in an Open Public Forum.

Admittedly, I have received a maelstrom of studies on erosion, but none definitively answer the question. Why not? IF a comparative study of inundation has been done, it should be easy enough to post the pages for everyone to see.

As no one is omniscient, and being responsible to protect the property rights of all the citizens of NC, it looks like the General Assembly is just saying, we need comprehensive verifiable science, before making important public policy decisions.

Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores.

]]>By: Bill Pricehttp://www.arcataeye.com/2012/06/humboldt-bay-not-ready-for-sea-level-rise-june-8-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-67793
Sat, 09 Jun 2012 16:56:06 +0000http://www.arcataeye.com/?p=6062#comment-67793National and International media have been criticizing the NC General Assembly, by joking that a Draft NC Law intends to stop Sea Level from rising or accelerating.

Real funny.

Obviously, no one disputes that Sea Level has been rising since the last Ice Age – very slowly; and certainly, if Sea Level Rise (SLR) is or will accelerate rapidly, we need to know about it, and plan for it; but , in short, it seems that the General Assembly want’s actual proof , instead of using an Ouija Board to predict acceleration of Sea Level Rise.

The issue arose because the CRC, Science Panel (SP) and scientists said,

– SL has been rising 18 inches / 100y ,

– 1 foot of SLR would inundate up to 2 miles of tidelands,

and then, using UN IPCC guesstimates, jumped to proposing Planning Policy for 39” SLR by 2100.

– Validity of tide gage data presented by the SP was found to be suspect.

– the SP’s Literature Search, was a one sided selection of Pro AGW and Pro SLR reports, with no other viewpoints presented.

When asked about this, the SP , scientists, and an educational institution have refused to answer questions, declined to do the studies, and refused to participate in an Open Public Forum.

Admittedly, I have received a maelstrom of studies on erosion, but none definitively answer the question. Why not? IF a comparative study of inundation has been done, it should be easy enough to post the pages for everyone to see.

As no one is omniscient, and being responsible to protect the property rights of all the citizens of NC, it looks like the General Assembly is just saying, we need comprehensive verifiable science, before making important public policy decisions.